U.S. Gov't. position: We The People are EXPENDABLE

[Handy]

Progunner,

Since you propose a completely unregulated system, how do you insure that the one person who actually brought a gun, isn't a terrorist?


You want to put guns in planes, but without any control of who does or does not have them. That forward door is not bullet proof. One Glock 17 deployed from next to the first class bathroom will quickly eliminate both "critical components".

How do you propose to prevent that happening?

 

[USP45usp]

Since you propose a completely unregulated system, how do you insure that the one person who actually brought a gun, isn't a terrorist?

Well, no one said that true Freedom wasn't without it's risks. How does that one (or six/eight/whatever) terrorist know which of all the passengers are armed and can fight back?

You want to put guns in planes, but without any control of who does or does not have them. That forward door is not bullet proof. One Glock 17 deployed from next to the first class bathroom will quickly eliminate both "critical components".

Actually, wasn't that door reinforced? And how do you know that the doors aren't bullet proof? Sources friend, sources .

Sendec,

Dont like being a "mere civilian'? Get to work and train.

Trained for what? To be a MERE civilian or ? Oh, if you're saying that only military and LEO's have such "training" and that only they should have guns, I am ex-military so that makes me eligible right? I mean, I've had training so that makes me qualified right? Or would I be qualified ONLY if I was still active or just an LEO?

I'll put my "training" up against an LEO's (state or federal) anyday (already have when we had the "civlians" vs "leo's" group shoots at the CATM range and we "civilians" kicked their butts 8 out of 10 times.).

I have noticed that no one has produced any solutions to the problem, just the same blah, blah, civilians can't be trusted, blah, blah, only "special people" should have guns, blah, blah, :barf:

I have a knife and understand the principle behind a tracheotomy, but that doesnt make me a surgeon nor qualified to perform the operation.

Yet, if you just happen to be in an area, absent of any EMT's or doctors and you happen upon an accident and a tracheotomy is needed quickly to save someones life or they will die, I take it that you would just watch right (them die), even though you have a knife and understand the principle behind it?

Wayne

 

[Handy]

Wayne,

Let me see if I understand you: It would be okay for a suicidal terrorist to get on a plane with a loaded gun, because he's going to be deterred by the chance that other passengers are armed?


That logic works with criminals, but in this case it is truly absurd.

 

[sendec]

OK Wayne, I'll bite - let's hear about your training, specifically that which qualifies you to defend an in-flight aircraft from hostile takeover by multiple attackers. That is, after all, what the FAMS are trained to do. You've done what, IPSC matches? Ex military, so you shot what, twice a year?

No FAM on your flight? How do you know? Gonna rise to the guns, and get shot in the back of the head by the layoff guy or girl?

I drive a car, but that dont make me a NASCAR driver. A man's gotta know his limitations.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Sendec-
You're certainly correct....citizens carrying guns is dangerous business. Little doubt in my mind many would shoot first and ask questions later. Our airliners would look like Dodge City.

Just look what happened after citizens started carrying in places like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Houston, Dallas and the like. We're still sweeping the body parts up off the street.

Rich

 

[USP45usp]

Handy

Wayne,

Let me see if I understand you: It would be okay for a suicidal terrorist to get on a plane with a loaded gun, because he's going to be deterred by the chance that other passengers are armed?


That logic works with criminals, but in this case it is truly absurd.

Okay, what are your solutions to the problem? I keep on asking and you and sendec keep on dodging to answer.

But, to answer your question (to show you how it's done ): Okay, the suicidal terrorist is going to act, not matter what, FAMS or armed passengers, a reinforced bulkhead door, etc.. isn't going to deter him/her/them. Okay, so what would either keep his carnage to a minimum or lesser the chance that he/she/them has a chance to get through the bulkhead door? The "mere civilians" can't be armed (maybe with a little knife now) so what happens? I could give you a look into a crytal ball of what happens, just watch the news tapes made on September 11, 2001 to get an indication of what is possible.

So, if those passengers were armed, or some of those passengers were armed, what makes you think that those news tapes wouldn't have come out differently? I would rather have heard that morning that a few innocent people had been accidently shot and killed while the passengers were defending the plane and landed safetly then to wake up and see that over 3,000 innocents people had been murdered.

Again, why don't you and sendec start coming up with some solutions instead of whining about how civilians shouldn't be able to have a chance against these terrorist.

Sendec,

OK Wayne, I'll bite - let's hear about your training, specifically that which qualifies you to defend an in-flight aircraft from hostile takeover by multiple attackers. That is, after all, what the FAMS are trained to do. You've done what, IPSC matches? Ex military, so you shot what, twice a year?

No FAM on your flight? How do you know? Gonna rise to the guns, and get shot in the back of the head by the layoff guy or girl?

I drive a car, but that dont make me a NASCAR driver. A man's gotta know his limitations.

I'll answer you if you answer mine.

My training, well, I did qualify twice a year once I became mobile. With both the M-16 and the M-9. I did the police shoots at the CATM range twice a year (this is where the MP's and the non-MP's do shooting matches against each other). So that's about 4 times a year.

I've taken the NRA basic pistol course, I've taken the NRA advance pistol course, I've taken the NRA home defense course, I've taken the NRA self defense course, and I've taken a few private courses. In all the advance courses there were the close confinment shooting drills, hostage drills, etc..

Now, I know that the FAMS have this "special training" that must be top secret blackops stuff due to you thinking that us mere civilians can't take the same courses. If training requirements is your biggest obstacle in civilians not being able to carry on an aircraft, would you change your mind if we took that training and passed?

No FAM on the flight.... hmmm, lets see, three planes, no FAM's...... by those statistics I would probably be correct in saying that there is a greater chance there isn't a FAM on board then there being one on board. Also, if the terrorists are acting, and no one is doing anything, then you have to assume that a FAM isn't on board, or is someplace where they can't see what is happening, or has froze up, that at least you and other passengers have a chance at keeping the F-16's from planting a missle into your plane.

The way I see it, you and the rest of the passengers are going to die if nothing is done. I doubt that one FAM will be able to take them all out (the terrorist) and that a cabin full of armed passengers may be able to assist. At least, you have a chance of survival if passengers are armed, right now, you don't have any chances.

So, once again, what are your solutions?

Wayne

 

[Handy]

My incredibly unfortunate and ruinously unAmerican solution is what I said in post #9: The pilots should be armed. They are behind a locked door and can best control their weapons.

In the cabin, the only people with guns should be (as I mentioned) those who have specific weapons retention training for that environment. That's Air Marshalls and any one else the FAA wants to certify. An airplane is a flimsy aluminum fuel filled tube with no escape and no cover. There is no room for shootouts.

Did you not read that post?


This is an airplane, not a saloon. It is a potential ballistic weapon, and is far more delicate than some of you want to give it credit for. 17 rounds of AP or tracer is MORE than sufficient to turn a 747 on approach into 20 city blocks of fire.

I know this is going to rub you the wrong way, but some places just aren't good fits for the mutually assured destruction philosophy of self defense. Nuclear power plants are another.


And what would happen should someone manage to smuggle a weapon aboard? I refer you to the 4th flight on 9/11. No one is ever going to control a plane with a weapon again - the passengers now know what is going to happen. So that argument is meaningless.

 

[sendec]

Arm the pilots. Arm the FAMS. Let airlines put their own armed security on planes like El Al, after they have qualified to standards. That'll do it, all without amateur assistance

What is the problem you keep refering to? We have had one of the lowest rates of skyjacking of any nation in the world. 9/11 was an anomoly, and as pointed out one of its effects is that there will never, ever be another attempted takeover of a plane by a nonpsychotic. The odds of a civilian needing a gun in flight are so infinitesimal as to be immeasurable. Having one may make you "feel better", but grow up, its a gun, not a security blanket. An American airliner is arguably one of the safest environments you could possibly be in. What are you worried about, drive-bys, muggings, meth dealers run wild? Just who are ya gonna need to shoot, the gremlin on the wing?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

This is an airplane, not a saloon.

Kinda knew someone would find it necessary to trip over the famous Dodge City allusion.

Gas stations are pretty dangerous places for all that high dollar, armor piercing, explosive, incendiary handgun ammo, too, Handy. Truck stops even more so. Passenger buses can do LOTS-O-DAMAGE, too. CCW owners been carrying firearms at all those places for some time now....can't remember the last time I heard of one committing a crime, let alone creating a catastrophe. Nor have I heard about a terrorist act perpetrated anywhere people had the right to exercise the 2nd in force. That is your point, isn't it? That terrorists will gravitate to places that allow them to legally carry guns. After all, they wouldn't want to break the law or anything.

Lest anyone get me wrong, I am not necessarily advocating arming all willing passengers. I'm just not convinced that it will lead to terrorists choosing those targets as "easy pickings".....and I'm certainly not convinced it'll look like a "saloon shootout" up there.

I have finally learned how my view of firearms differs from so many others. You see, assuming all law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, I couldn't care less if YOU are carrying a firearm or not. Others seem to care very much. Go figure.
Rich

 

[blackmind]

Handy wrote:

My incredibly unfortunate and ruinously unAmerican solution is what I said in post #9: The pilots should be armed. They are behind a locked door and can best control their weapons.

In the cabin, the only people with guns should be (as I mentioned) those who have specific weapons retention training for that environment. That's Air Marshalls and any one else the FAA wants to certify. An airplane is a flimsy aluminum fuel filled tube with no escape and no cover. There is no room for shootouts.

Here's a scenario I envision:

Following Handy's recommendation, the pilots are armed, but the civilians are not allowed to be, so they are not. A terrorist sneaks a high-capacity handgun onto the plane (or maybe it's planted there for him prior to the flight). He now has the passenger cabin at gunpoint and no one has anything like a weapon with which to fight him.

He knocks on the cockpit door, and tells them to open up. They, armed and secure inside, refuse, because to do so might mean that they lose control of the plane to him and it becomes a flying bomb. They will not come out, period.

Now, he says he will shoot passengers if they don't open up. They will not open up, because while he may be able to shoot 15, 17, maybe more passengers, to open the cockpit door is to expose the entire flight to the possibility of catastrophe (not to mention anyone they hit on the ground).

So people start getting shot to death in the cabin. Resoluteness (mixed with grief) is the response from the cockpit.

NO ONE CAN FIGHT THIS TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DISARMED, AND THE ONLY ONES ON THE FLIGHT WITH A GUN TO SHOOT BACK WITH ARE IN THE COCKPIT AND THEY WILL NOT OPEN THE DOOR.

Does this war-of-nerves scenario put a lump in your stomach? It should. It certainly puts one in mine.

Having the pilots armed in case the terrorist breaks through the reinforced door is fine. I want the pilots armed; they are the last defense of the aircraft and its occupants.

But let's not ignore the fact that they are staying in there with their guns, so those guns are useless at defending lives on the plane if someone with a smuggled weapon starts harming passengers in the cabin. Oh, gee, that's right, we have air marshals... on less than 5% of all flights. That's a sucky gamble.



Massan wrote:

A bullet punching through a planes interior will cause decompression but not on the scale of Hollywood. I dun know all the physiscs and science but it will force the plane to descent on a rapid scale and may crash if the pilot is unable to control the plane.

A bullet punching through the plane's skin or window will not really challenge the pressurization system, according to what I have read about the subject. The apertures that allow air in and out of the system are far larger than bullet holes to begin with.

I have no idea why you claim that a bullet hole will "force the plane to descent (sic) on a rapid scale (sic)" because the bullet hole does not operate the plane's controls; the pilots do. Depressurization, of the type that a bullet is not likely to cause, might necessitate a hasty descent. Not the same thing as "forcing the plane to descend on a rapid scale."

As far as "may crash if the pilot is unable to control the plane"...
ALL planes will crash if the pilot is unable to control the plane. That's the definition of "flying." Now, the question is, obviously, WILL the bullet cause the pilot to be unable to control the plane. All signs point to NO.

You also made a statement that armed Air Marshals will avoid firing unless they cannot avoid it. Do you have any factual basis (knowledge of their training programs and operating doctrine) on which to make this claim?

My own suspicion is that when dealing with a potential terrorist, who may or may not have explosives he can detonate on board, an Air Marshal might be likely to do just the opposite of trying not to fire. He might be eager to dispatch the terrorist as quickly and with as much finality as possible. But I don't KNOW this, and YOU don't know for sure that they'd do as YOU said.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

And what would happen should someone manage to smuggle a weapon aboard? I refer you to the 4th flight on 9/11. No one is ever going to control a plane with a weapon again - the passengers now know what is going to happen. So that argument is meaningless.

So IF a terrorist is the one who manages to smuggle a handgun on board, since you're confident that the plane's occupants will not let him take it over, what will happen? A bunch of brave passengers (who volunteers to be first in that procession) will rush the guy who has the handgun? Why force people to be bullet-absorbers so that the 16th guy who rushes a terrorist with 15 rounds of ammunition can tackle him?

Just because people won't let another plane be taken, that doesn't mean "make defending it carry the cost of that many innocent lives before they overcome the would-be hijacker."

I vote for people being able to be armed to resist him, rather than them being forced to use a pile of humans to overcome him.

-blackmind

 

[Handy]

Let's get a couple of things straight, here:

I'm a military pilot with 300 of my 1900 hours in pressurized, multiengine transport planes. They aren't flimsy, but they are vulnerable.


Rich, you make a point that a handgun could be dangerous anywhere, which is true. The truth about guns is that they are dangerous, and if it were possible to guarantee no guns anywhere, it would be safer. We choose to have armed citizens in part because you can't guarantee no guns, and because we feel that guns are necessary to control the government.

But airports and airplanes ARE places where highly effective weapons can be virtually eliminated. And that's not so bad because airplanes are both far more vulnerable and far more dangerous than just about any other common device you are likely to ever be near.


I can't think of any other situation where one judiciously used handgun could cause so many deaths. It doesn't have to be some complicated take-over plan: Firing tracer rounds into the wing root in the right part of an approach can drop 400 passengers onto many hundreds of people. This could be done on the whim of any armed passenger, and there would be no time to stop him.


I really think it's stuff like this that makes the moderates think we're nuts. The current system is not perfect, but makes sense due to the particular vulnerabilities of airplanes and their ability to produce immense death tolls. This no-holds-barred experiment some of you favor bears some resemblence to other situations, but is really a very extreme twist on the right to arms.


If you want to advocate this, go ahead. It may be "correct" as far as your values go, but I haven't heard any of you suggest we have a right to bear nuclear arms lately, so maybe you do realize that there are limits.

As a professional pilot, firearms hobbiest and rights advocate, I must stand up and say this is a very poorly thought out idea.

 

[johnbt]

"If you disagree, you are not paying attention."

And that's where I quit reading. Have a nice day.

John

 

[Handy]

I have finally learned how my view of firearms differs from so many others. You see, assuming all law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, I couldn't care less if YOU are carrying a firearm or not.

Even if I'm suicidal/homocidal, and we're standing in a natural gas refinery? Guns are effective deterents or defense against some forms of violence, not all.

Airplanes are effective weapons, which is why they are attractive targets. Truck stops are neither.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Even if I'm suicidal/homocidal, and we're standing in a natural gas refinery?

I'll take my chances, Handy. Handguns are pretty anemic man stoppers. Basically meaningless against refinery equipment....even with the Lethat Weapon XIX Magic Bullets in play.

Back to planes. I'm an active pilot, too. With, ummm, a few more hours than 300. But I've not got nearly the background on handgun threats to commercial jets that you seem to have. The ability of HANDGUN Tracer rounds to take out a commercial jet on approach?....fascinating. Kinda forces me to ask the operative question:
"Source Please?"....and kindly include the scenario where the Terrorist pumps fifteen rounds of this amazing material into a wing while a cabinfull of armed passengers stand by in shocked disbelief.

Like I said, I'm not necessarily advocating the arming of passengers.
Like I also said, the difference between you and I is that I couldn't care less if YOU are carrying a firearm in my presence. I only wish MY personal activities were of as little interest to you.

Translation: You're frightened of people with guns. I don't spend much time worrying about it....there are far greater threats to my daily safety.

Oh, by the way, I liked the "Well, then, why can't citizens own nukes?" diversion. You've really got me there. Need to rethink my entire take on the Second Amendment after that bombshell of logic.
Rich

 

[blackmind]

But airports and airplanes ARE places where highly effective weapons can be virtually eliminated.

Your words, not mine. You said "virtually," which is tantamount to saying, "We can't truly get them 100% eliminated."

It's the 1 in X thousand that we are talking about being able to defend against, Handy.


Pardon me, and disregard what I say if you choose -- I'm only a private pilot with 130 hours total time.


-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

"If you disagree, you are not paying attention."

And that's where I quit reading. Have a nice day.

John

Well, John, if one chooses to get hypersensitive about someone's choice of wording to the point where one puts fingers in the ears and chants "la la la la la," one robs oneself of the potential to be introduced to knowledge that one didn't have before.

I think it's a bit prissy to make a big show of being so "offended" by what we all know is, essentially, hyperbole, that one decides to forgo any chance at learning something from the rest of the discussion. What's more important, anyway, the wording, or the message?

Overall, I think 1957 is correct in his assessments. And I took his choice of words to mean, "I really feel emphatically that anyone who considers this would have to be angered by it; and not being angered by it is a sign that you really haven't paid attention."

-blackmind

 

[USP45usp]

Handy, yes, I read your #9 post, did you read my #37 post? I explain why I thought the "system" as it is will not work.

As for this:

I'm a military pilot with 300 of my 1900 hours in pressurized, multiengine transport planes.

Please explain to me why you carry an M-9 with you? Why is it that you have orders to protect your aircraft, even while flying, if need be?

Dude, you need to revisit your military history. Planes were shot up all the time, including transports. These planes didn't implode when they got a few holes in their hules. These planes usually made their trips to deliver supplies, troops, etc.. while full of holes and then got back to base.

My father was an Air Force air craft mechanic. Was in Vietnam. They used coke cans (the tin), duct tape, and other creative means to get the planes back to the main air field.

And since you are a military pilot who transport, do you demand that the soldiers put their guns and rifles away?

When I flew to Taif to move the U-2's from there to Prince Saltun AB, we flew in a C-130. I, as well as the others, were issued the 9mm. The Pilot, the Co-Pilot and the Load Master all had 9mm's. They were loaded. So are you saying that when I was active, that was fine, as well with all the others, or are you saying that now since I am a civilian, I can no longer be trusted?

If I may say so, you are a butter bar aren't you? That would explain allot (why we differ, the NCO's were the ones that knew stuff, the LT's were the ones that thought they knew it all ).

Wayne

 

[Handy]

Always a pleasure, Rich.


I do not understand why you feel that having a handgun on your person forms a forcefield that makes you impervious to harm. This is a nonsequitur.

Guns provide the ability to meet force with force. But some situations cannot be solved or prevented by escalating force, despite you're "fear" rhetoric.


BTW, can you direct me to your information about how invulnerable planes are to bullets? Source, please.

 

[sendec]

"Translation: You're frightened of people with guns. I don't spend much time worrying about it....there are far greater threats to my daily safety."

Interesting take - apparently those of us willing to be unarmed for a brief, logical period of time are fearful, but those who insist on being armed no matter how unlikely the threat are not. If you arent fearful, why be armed? Talk about logic....

I am willing to fly unarmed because I am not afraid of anything on board. History has shown that the odds of me needing to kill somebody on board a plane just dont exist.

And I cant speak for anyone else, but darn tootin I'm afraid of people with guns. There are criminals who use them for, well, crimes. There are non criminals who do stupid things with them. There are untrained twits who have no business with a sharp stick, let alone a gun.

I guess that you think everyone one with a gun is aces and a literal brother in arms. I'm not that naive and trusting. That's one of the reasons I carry a gun.